Quote of the week
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Tuesday that she would try to block any European Commission attempt to impose a general emission reduction on the auto sector and will oppose including the car industry in the CO2 trading program. "The German government will advocate for a sectoral reduction with all its power and energy," Merkel said at a conference on Europe organized by German business groups. "And I think I can go so far as to say that we will prevent a general reduction. At any rate, I will do what ever I can to prevent this."
--International Herald Tribune, 30 January 2007
"In a sense NGOs are filling a power vacuum left by the collapse of the Soviet Union. After all, without the USSR what forces are there to stoke resentment in developing countries towards the rich industrialized states?"
Neil Maghami in "Forward to Yesterday: NGOs Wage War Against Globalization", Capital Research Center, August 2006
"All parties are right to worry about the affected populations, but, more than any sophisticated diagnostic equipment, what is needed is credible information, presented in a digestible format, to counter Chernobyl's destructive legacy of fear. The children of Chernobyl are all grown up; their interests, and those of their own children, are best served not by continually evoking the nightmare of radiation, but by giving them the tools and authority they need to rebuild their own communities."
Kalman Mizsei, assistant administrator and regional director of UNDP Regional Bureau for Europe and CIS, and Louisa Vinton, UNDP senior program manager responsible for the Western CIS and Caucasus countries, as well as Chernobyl, in: Project Syndicate, www.koreaherald.co.kr
/SITE/data/html_dir/ 2006/04/17/200604170027.asp, 20 April 2006.
But don't you think that's two pieces of good news? That climate sensitivity
is less than previously thought and also that the models everyone's been using
for the past five years over-estimate (to a still argued over degree) the
likely emissions over the next century? Want the bad news? The IPCC isn't
going to take any notice.
--Tim Worstall, TCS Daily, 11 April 2006
Osborn and Briffa [2006], published today in Science, cannot be considered as an "independent" validation of Hockey Stick climate theories, because it simply re-cycles 14 proxies, some of them very questionable, which have been repeatedly used in other "Hockey Team" studies, including, remarkably, 2 separate uses of the controversial bristlecone/foxtail tree ring data.
Also even more remarkably, they have perpetuated the use of Mann's erroneous principal components method in one of their key proxies.
The Osborn and Briffa article vividly illustrates the weakness both of peer reviewing and editorial decision-making in the paleoclimate area at Science, the prominent journal presently reeling from the Hwang stem cell scandal. It highlights a failure to implement their own policies on data archiving and failures to verify claims in the article itself.
Stephen McIntyre, Review of Osborn and Briffa [2006], Feb. 7, 2006,
www.climateaudit.org/?p=523
|
